Is the juxtaposition of the Christmas holiday and the undoing of Amendment 3 in Utah merely coincidence? Probably. But I just can’t help myself. I have to point out the irony of it. The irony starts with the “reason for the season” (we’ll just ignore that he wasn’t actually born on December 25). Whether you believe in Jesus, prophets, or pagan gods, you’re probably familiar with the story and what he was about. To sum who he was and what he was all about:

He wasn’t well liked, and among the reasons for not being well liked was all the times he mingled with people he wasn’t supposed to mingle with. In short, he’s like the guy at the party who tries to create room at the table for everyone: you kind of admire him for the thought and hate him for making you share. Maybe he was like that because there wasn’t any room at any inn for him.

Like Jesus, some County Clerks in Utah made room for gay and lesbian couples when Amendment 3 was found to be unconstitutional.

The most distressing part of all the arguments against gay marriage, especially in red states like Utah, is no one is willing to let us enjoy family life, which is one of the most conservative things a person could want. But… those who have a monopoly on family don’t want to share.

Not to let the cat out of the bag, but we want to start a family at some point down the road. The most distressing part about it is the legal uncertainty we’ll face. Depending on where we live, both of us might not have legal custody. We might not have joint healthcare (and I can’t even fathom how much that will cost; healthcare is already expensive enough).

Anyway, back to the reason for this post. ’Tis the season to be merry and bright, so I’ll part with this thought: It’s the time of year when we all celebrate something meaningful (whether worshipping Jesus, gods, or celebrating the shortest day of the year and welcoming more and more sunlight) and spend time with our families. So let’s learn from this little girl and get back to focusing on what’s directly important to all of us.

And finally, let’s have pity on plights and open our doors wether that be opening courthouses for gay and lesbian couples, sharing legal protections for families of gay and lesbian households, or just opening the door.

Regnerus summarized the problem of pornography as one that “presses its consumers…away from sex as having anything approaching a ‘marital meaning’ or structure…” and referenced a quote that states marriage is about “sharing one’s body and whole self in the way best suited for honorable parenthood…permanently and exclusively”. So, let’s make the his point clear: pornography is a problem because it focuses on temporary, non-monogamous relationships rather than permanent and exclusive relationships.

An example of a permanent and exclusive relationship.

I think this is something a lot of people agree on. We don’t like pornography because of what it portrays and what it might encourage people to do. It makes some sense. And the author even admits to the fact that pornography on the web is broad. In fact, he called it a “veritable fire-hose dousing of sex-act diversity” that includes “alternative forms of sexual activity”.

An example of what pornography encourages people not to do.

And then he makes the jump from ‘porn is bad’ to ‘porn causes you to support same-sex marriage — the more you watch, the more gays you want to see marry.” Yep. Porn is horrible because it encourages people away from conventional sex acts of exclusivity and permanence toward supporting permanent and exclusive relationships.

Dustin Lance Black teamed up with Google and YouTube to stream a play about marriage equality and Proposition 8. The play is a great way to get up to speed on the happenings of Proposition 8 (past, present, and future). It’s also a great way to take a little peak into the lives of the plaintiffs, to see how marriage inequality impacts their family life. Until today, I didn’t know who the plaintiffs were (other than knowing about the name “Perry” in Perry v. Schwarzanegger, now Perry v. Brown) and seeing them helped shape my outlook on the case: they’re actual people with lives and families.

Jamie Lee Curtis, acting as Sandy Stier, summarized what I feel was one of the most poignant parts of the play:

“The first time somebody said to me, ‘Are you married?’, and I said, ‘Yes’, I would think, ‘That feels good and honest and true.’ I would feel less like I had to protect my kids.”

This is a question I can relate to. When strangers ask me, “Are you married?”, I stumble to find the right words or feel like I’m thrust into the middle of a debate where I’ll have to make some kind of argument to demonstrate I am in a valid relationship. What is marriage? Is it just the commitment Dan and I made to one another? Then yes, I’m married: we are in a committed relationship.

Or is marriage merely a contract that binds us together under the law? If that’s the case, then no, I’m not married. We rent an apartment together. We have a joint bank account and credit card. We go on trips together and stay in the same hotel room. We pay our taxes separately and we have separate health insurance. We say “I love you” when we wake up, go to bed, and head off to work. We are just like every other couple out there. But, when it comes to legal rights, we have nothing that binds us together. If Dan was in the hospital and I wanted the right to see him during family visiting hours, I’d have to pay a lawyer hundreds of dollars to draft some kind of contract, the same contract straight couples get for $45 at the courthouse. When people ask, “Are you married?”, I’m forced to say “No, I’m not.” And that leads to other questions, “Well, you have a ring on your finger. What’s that about?” Either that or they ask about my wife…

And some people ask, “Well, why don’t you move to a state where same-sex marriage is legal?” They don’t understand that flying to a state where same-sex marriage is legal and getting a certificate there doesn’t make us married here in Utah. The minute we cross state lines, legal benefits associated with marriage dissolve.

Understandably, I got a little verklempt when Jamie Lee Curtis shared her (or rather Sandy’s) thoughts about what it will be like when she can say, “Yes, I’m married.”

Humanity can learn a lot from the animal world. After all, animals can’t be tempted by the devil; they’re pure. They also can’t speak so we know there’s no way nurture could ever change how nature nurtured them. I personally have learned a lot from penguins. They’re so cute.

It’s a known fact that penguin chicks are best raised in a male-female rockhold. It’s important for boy penguins to be raised by a father so they have an appropriate masculine role model. It’s also important for girl penguins to have a mommy to show them how to cook, clean, and raise other penguins. If they came from, say, a female-only rockhold, how would more penguins be born? If they came from a male-only rockhold, who would teach penguins to be kind and gentle? My world came crashing down today. I’ve lost hope in the animal world. I just learned boy penguins sometimes rock-up with other boy penguins. I thought it was only a Parks and Recreation joke but apparently it’s legit. Some penguins are gay! And it’s not just a few penguins here and there. They’re everywhere! And they’re pairing off. I blame the prolific gay agenda. Gay penguins must be infiltrating penguin schools and nurseries. And now I just learned that penguins aren’t the only animals with gay tendencies. Apparently homosexual activity has been documented in dolphins, bison, apes, elephants, giraffes, monkeys, lions, sheep, hyenas, lizards, dragonflies, fruit flies, bed bugs, swans, gulls, vultures, and pigeons. Unreal. Well, that’s what Wikipedia says. I’m not so sure I can trust it hasn’t been infiltrated by the gay agenda.

Two boy ducks kissing (picture from Wikipedia)

Turns out, there’s a lot I don’t understand about penguins, specifically straight penguins. I thought they were nature’s pride and joy, perfect and untouchable. They get penguin married, make penguin babies, and live the March of the Penguin life. I just found out there’s this one zoo where a straight penguin couple kicked an egg from their rockhold. Now I’m really conflicted because a pair of gay penguins adopted the chick and are raising it better than the straight couple. Well, the straight couple gave the chick up before it hatched so I guess we’ll never know who would have raised it better. Maybe they weren’t planning on having another chick until the following year; who knows. Watch and learn.

Years ago I participated in an online discussion forum for members of the LDS Church who “struggle” with “same-sex” or “same-gender attraction”. A member of the discussion forum shared an epiphany with the group that went something like this (not an exact quote):

I finally understand. The reason God has asked his prophets [leaders of the LDS Church] to speak out against same-sex marriage is because if same-sex marriage is allowed then God’s children will have fewer families to be born into.

To set the stage a little, not all faithful members of the LDS Church agree with the movement to stop same-sex marriage from becoming legal, and this is particularly true among faithful members of the Church who identify as gay, lesbian, and same-sex or same-gender attracted. I was met with some hostility when I pointed out the epiphany wasn’t logical. I think I was accused of being apostate because I didn’t agree with the logic.

I understand the author was likely speaking of the possibility that if gay marriage becomes legal, then quite possibly some men (gay) and women (lesbian) who would otherwise pursue opposite-sex marriages might pursue same-sex marriages instead. But the argument isn’t really logical because whether or not same-sex marriage is legal, straight couples (at least the ones who can and choose to along with the few accidentals) will continue to have children. In other words, the number of existing straight relationships will probably not increase of decrease when already existing gay relationships are legally recognized. Maybe there’s something I’m not understanding, so please comment if you would like to add to the discussion.

While discussing this on Facebook, someone pointed out the same argument (quoted above). I really like the response a friend made to this argument (minus Katy Perry being spoken of in bad light):

[Kim Kardashian, Sinead O’Connor, and Katy Perry] each publicly married and then publicly divorced in really short time (72 days, 18ish days, and a year or something like that). Those people threaten and destroy the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of families. I’m not sure how you and Dan’s committed relationship affect my relationship with my spouse or theoretical children or the sanctity of my marriage.

Why is this discussion relevant? Dan talked about this in a beautiful post about my family and how relationships are often challenged because of the teaching of principle of tough love. Perhaps “tough love” is destroying families more than my relationship to Dan is destroying families. An anonymous blogger shared his fear that as the Church continues to argue that gay relationships are destroying families, families with a gay member will continue to be destroyed. Perhaps lobbying against certain kinds of families is destroying families. Years ago I participated in a discussion with a family who lost a family member to suicide. The note the family member left suggested he committed suicide due to the Church’s participation in the political process and ensuing discussions that took place within the walls LDS chapels. They were brought to tears when they talked about what it was like when they learned the Church was advocating for Prop. 8 and encouraging members of the Church to get involved. They worried that more gay Mormons would commit suicide. They were also deeply conflicted: they support the leaders of the LDS Church as their spiritual leaders but they also lost a child because of the Church’s involvement.

This discussion is also relevant because Republican presidential candidates are making similar arguments. Freedom to Marry asserted that Perry, Romney, and Gingrich (respectively) “declared that committed couples wanting to marry are part of a war against religion”, adoption agencies would be shut down if they don’t adopt out to same-sex couples, and that it is not possible to comprehend gay families as families so “we want to make it possible to have those things that are most intimately human between friends”. Rick Santorum is the poster child for the Republican party claiming he will forcibly divorce gay married couples.

Maybe the real threats to religious freedom, family, and child birth are not gay couples, but the people fighting against gay couples. In other words, maybe fighting against my freedoms decreases your freedoms: you can still have babies and go to church while Dan and I go to school, pay our bills, and file our (separate-but-equal) tax returns.

Finally, this discussion is relevant because, let’s be honest, the arguments against same-sex marriage aren’t really about adoption rights, the first amendment, or even tradition, as Cary Crall posited in BYU’s Daily Universe (which, of course, was later pulled from the paper). Crall asked what it’s all about and asserted:

The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment. We must accept this explanation, along with all its consequences for good or ill on our own relationship with God and his children here on earth. Maybe then we will stop thoughtlessly spouting reasons that are offensive to gays and lesbians and indefensible to those not of our faith.

An argument for traditional biblical marriage?

If it is your belief that God doesn’t want same-sex marriage, come out of the closet and say so. I’m okay with that. You must also realize that even if that is your belief, we live in a pluralistic society; not everyone shares your beliefs and it is not okay to require that everyone uphold your beliefs. If same-sex marriage becomes legal, you can still have babies and go to church.

The holiday season can be pretty stressful, especially when you’re the gay member of a religious family and especially when one of your siblings is getting married a few days before Christmas and the other a few days after. This is the position we’re in. My family is attempting to combine one stressful situation (having a gay son/brother) with three stressful events — Christmas and two weddings. Add to the stress the fact that me and all my siblings got married this year so our family is entirely new to planning the holidays around in-laws’ schedules.

From the perspective of a gay member of the family, I don’t look forward to peoples’ reactions when they learn, if they haven’t heard already, that I’m married to a man. I dread conversations like these:

I don’t have too much reason to suspect anyone in my family will follow her instructions, but bitter conversations over Facebook suggests the possibility I might be met with hostility of the passive-aggressive type. Fortunately, I have potential allies in the family as well (e.g., a cousin who “likes” Facebook posts about gay issues); I’m hopeful it won’t be too painful if I show up to my dad’s family’s Christmas party. And even more fortunate than that, I haven’t had to worry at all with my mom’s family. One aunt and her daughter — my cousin (and friend) — extended a warm invitation to Thanksgiving suspecting Dan and I might feel uncomfortable attending.

Perhaps the most stressful part of it all is the disregard Dan experiences. My dad doesn’t acknowledge his presence at family outings. He has also suggested that Dan should be introduced at Christmas and the weddings as “a family friend” or roommate. (I have a hard time believing there are people out there who don’t know I’m gay and don’t know Dan and I are partnered, but that’s always a possibility I guess). And I don’t blame my dad for being nervous about how people will respond; people can be mean and it’s scary to consider all the potential reactions people might have. I’m nervous about peoples’ reactions too, but I’ve had more opportunities to experience those reactions and awkward moments than has my dad.

Despite all the potential stress, frustration, and awkwardness this holiday season might bring, I’m looking forward to having my first Christmas with Dan. The holidays for these two gays are going to rock.

I don’t always feel qualified to answer questions on marriage equality and other gay issues, especially when it comes to adoption by gay and lesbians couples: My personal experiences and knowledge are limited. I’ve compiled a series of videos that offer rebuttals to common arguments against gay marriage and other gay issues either through someone telling their story or a representation of true-to-life scenarios and facts. Share these videos on social media to answer questions you don’t feel qualified to answer; it makes a difference.

Zach Wahls of Iowa talks about being raised by two moms. He asks legislators in Iowa:

“You are voting for the first time in the history of our state to codify discrimination into our constitution… Will this vote affect my family? Will it affect yours?”

He further asserts “The sexual orientation of my parents has had zero affect on my character.”

This video from Australia reminds me of significant life events I’ve shared with Dan including our engagement.

This video is touching to me. People briefly mention aspects of the Constitution that uphold gay marriage and then say (something along the lines):

“We are the people of the United States of America. I’m your doctor. I’m your lawyer. I’m your pastor. I’m your neighbor. I’m your kids best friend.”

This video is also touching to me as I’ve felt numerous times that I need permission from all the people fighting against my marriage to be with Dan.

And here’s a clip from the most progressive show ever: The Golden Girls. If you want to know why men have nipples, this clip has an answer.

Wanda Sykes on gay marriage:

“If you don’t believe in same-sex marriage then don’t marry someone of the same sex… I think the biggest threat to marriage is divorce… Make marriage like the mafia: once you’re in, you’re in.”

Vulgarity warning: Wanda has been known to curse.

These videos are a little longer and more in depth. The man in the video talks about aspects of religious freedom that aren’t threatened by gay marriage. It is basically a rebuttal to Dallin H. Oaks: Oaks cites many of the same cases this guy discusses (e.g., the United Methodist Church case). These are the same cases and arguments distributed in LDS congregations during the time of Prop 8. LDS lawyer Morris Thurston offered his own rebuttal to these same arguments.

Here’s a final video from the CATO Institute which describes how marriage is a fundamental right.